• Monday, November 18, 2019

SC Ayodhya verdict shows Muslims can be given public space if it doesn’t adulterate Hindu one

Discussion in 'Central & South Asia' started by Shahzaz ud din, Nov 10, 2019.

  1. Shahzaz ud din

    Shahzaz ud din SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    5,577
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2017
    Ratings:
    +9 / 8,157 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Canada
    SC Ayodhya verdict shows Muslims can be given public space if it doesn’t adulterate Hindu one
    Supreme Court's Ayodhya verdict redefines how space is to be understood in secular India by agreeing to 'Mandir wahin banayenge'.
    KHUSHDEEP KAUR MALHOTRA and NEELANJAN SIRCAR 10 November, 2019 9:51 am IST
    [​IMG]
    People gather outside Supreme Court, Saturday | Manisha Mondal | ThePrint
    Text Size:
    Mandir wahi baneyenge (We will build a temple there). On Saturday, the Supreme Court of India agreed.

    Awarding the entire 2.77 acres of the disputed site where the Babri Masjid once stood to the Hindu community, which holds that the site is the birthplace of Ram Lalla, the Supreme Court granted the Muslim community 5 acres of land to build a mosque elsewhere in Ayodhya.
    A centuries-old mosque, the Babri Masjid, was demolished by Hindu “activists” in December 1992 because it lay on the purported birthplace of Ram in Ayodhya. The Supreme Court agreed that the demolition of the mosque was unlawful, but it displaced the Muslim community from the land anyway. The judgment said there was insufficient evidence that the structure demolished to build the mosque was a Hindu temple, but it displaced the Muslim community anyway. Most importantly, the Supreme Court agreed that the disputed land not too long ago was a place of peaceful Hindu and Muslims co-existence, but it displaced the Muslim community anyway.

    As a secular country, one’s experience of India is that of a land in which all religions—whether churches, gurdwaras, mandirs or masjids—have the right to proud public display of religious thought, practice and ritual, often in close geographic proximity to one another. This rich historical tapestry, a melding of influences from Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Christianity, and Jainism, has created modern Indian culture as the world knows it. Such physical, cultural and spiritual sharing of this singular geography is what leads academics to describe India’s space as “syncretic”, something that reflects the amalgamation of different religious practices and cultures.

    In the Supreme Court judgment, the five justices write, “The disputed site has witnessed a medley of faiths and the co-existence of Hindu and Muslim practices, beliefs and customs…[T]he distinctive features of the site, embodying both Hindu and Islamic traditions led to the creation of a space with an identity of its own” (emphasis in the written judgment).

    The court’s judgment thus affirms the syncretic nature of Ayodhya.

    Beyond merely being a geographical terrain, ‘space’ is an entity produced from multiple social and political experiences, both lived and desired, of multiple entities, such as citizens or governments. How we as active contributors construct and experience the space of our nation also shapes the relations we share with each other and with our government. Because of India’s unique secularism, and guarantee of constitutional equality, one could say that there is some measure of ‘spatial equality’ that all Indian religions enjoy.

    But the Ayodhya title dispute judgment, while intending to uphold constitutional equality, poses serious challenges to both syncretism and spatial equality — qualities unique to Indian secularism.

    A Hindu temple will now be built where the Babri Masjid once stood. The Supreme Court found the previous ruling by Allahabad High Court dividing the land between the Hindu and Muslim communities as “legally unsustainable” and “not feasible”. The sanctioning of a temple in place of a mosque signifies that spatial control, and therefore the shaping of social relationships between religions, rests in the hands of the Hindus and all else must negotiate with it.

    To allow one religion to dominate a space is to diminish another’s claim over it.

    As the judgment makes clear, this is not a dispute that goes back to the time of Mughal ruler Babur or Hindu god Ram. It is a dispute that can be traced to religious riots that broke out in 1856, soon after the British annexed the kingdom of Oudh. Rather than settling the dispute in line with Ayodhya’s syncretic and peaceful past, the Supreme Court has chosen to erase one side altogether. The allocation of land to Muslims at a “prominent place” elsewhere in Ayodhya redefines how space is to be understood in Indian secularism. Muslims may be granted public space as long as it does not adulterate Hindu space. Mandir and masjid, and consequently their custodians, are best separated.

    None of this is to say that Hindus and Muslims have always co-existed peacefully or that there have not been invaders that destroyed temples (even if that is not so clear in this matter). And one should expect the principles of Indian secularism to restore peaceful co-existence between religions in times of crisis — not choose a winner.

    To adjudicate the case, the Supreme Court had to ascertain details on when and where each community prayed in the masjid complex over the course of history. Needless to say, history is far murkier than the exacting details required in this case. By giving into an interpretation of history in which Hindus and Muslims cannot co-exist peacefully, the Court has generated incentives for further aggressive tactics to “reclaim” Hindu spaces — perhaps this time in Mathura or Varanasi.

    If we are to set off on this journey of ‘spatial reclamation’ to account for all that was stolen in the name of conquest, then where do we draw the line? For two, or even many, wrongs cannot make a right.

    Khushdeep Kaur Malhotra is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Geography and Urban Studies at Temple University. Neelanjan Sircar is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Ashoka University and Visiting Senior Fellow at the Centre for Policy Research. Views are personal.

    ThePrint is now on Telegram. For the best reports & opinion on politics, governance and more, subscribe to ThePrint on Telegram.
     
  2. Hindustani78

    Hindustani78 BANNED

    Messages:
    39,782
    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2014
    Ratings:
    +5 / 12,636 / -18
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    International Extrocism Healing Center proposal was forwarded by whom ? This has let into the Deaths of Dharam Sansad Religious Scholars and Ulema e Hind's Aamil's in Large Numbers all over Hindustan, Union of India. Catholic Priests cant heal because the Catholic's doesnt read even an Ayat of Injeel.

    Updated: Apr 16, 2018, 07.41 PM IST
    “The international tourist market is largely untapped in the case of Ayodhya. The number of international tourists visiting Ayodhya has been very low, i.e. approx. 24000 in the year 2017.Ayodhya does not carry a significant spiritual brand such as Haridwar or Varanasi, which have a brand perception of being able to “wash away sins” (Haridwar), or attain spiritual freedom (Varanasi).It does not offer the brand equity of being a ‘spiritual destination’ or be part of a ‘backpacker’s trail’ – either of which has been instrumental in tapping into the international tourist market,” says the UP government document dated April 12, which was reviewed by ET.
     
  3. Sheikh Rauf

    Sheikh Rauf SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    4,678
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2014
    Ratings:
    +0 / 3,300 / -9
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Qatar
    if UAE wanted to give a land for mandir they sud have ask gurantee for babri masjid.. if muslims will not stand for whats their now they will not again. good luck to secular india is in deep in hell.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  4. IndianGuy_

    IndianGuy_ FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    218
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2019
    Ratings:
    +0 / 116 / -7
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    It's a lose lose scenario for Hindus with liberals.

    If the Hindus were not given land and masjid was allowed to be build over it only then would it have appeased these liberals.

    India is a land of multi religions, no one religion is Supreme but that doesn't mean it's the majority religion that always ends up giving concession.

    What outsiders think shouldn't concern us. This was a fight about Hindus reclaiming the land that once belonged to their deity. It wasn't to build a temple over a mosque.

    Ayodhya is considered to be kingdom of Ram, a Hindu Lord. If it was about showing Muslims their place why would Hindu side welcome the move by Supreme Court to allot the land for masjid inside the very Ayodhya?

    As for what outsiders are going to make of this, it is in their interest to keep instigating Indian Muslims, so as to say we were right to cross the border. Unfortunately for them Indian Muslims won't be swayed by such cheap tactics. But it does show intention of such people.
     
  5. Whirling_dervesh

    Whirling_dervesh FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    582
    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2014
    Ratings:
    +1 / 941 / -0
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    If Indian muslims have an iota of shame, they would tell whoever is offering to shove that 5 acre land being offered....
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  6. masterchief_mirza

    masterchief_mirza FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,886
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2019
    Ratings:
    +2 / 3,226 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    And why would they displace the Muslim community anyway?? Maybe because if they don't, their families will get lynched. Yay! Magic democracy land India rising like Bollywood yoga hugs for everyone!

    You've rewarded a massacre. Now the precedent is set for future reclamations.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  7. GHALIB

    GHALIB BANNED

    Messages:
    3,658
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2018
    Ratings:
    +1 / 1,591 / -46
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    indian muslims and hindus are happy that this dispute is over .
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  8. masterchief_mirza

    masterchief_mirza FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,886
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2019
    Ratings:
    +2 / 3,226 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    "And one should expect the principles of Indian secularism to restore peaceful co-existence between religions in times of crisis — not choose a winner."

    Building a neutral structure would have "appeased these liberals" and may well have been the best way out of this.

    Indian Hindus must indeed be happy that they get to build their temple. Indian Muslims must indeed be happy they are safe for now from lynchings. Win-win.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  9. GHALIB

    GHALIB BANNED

    Messages:
    3,658
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2018
    Ratings:
    +1 / 1,591 / -46
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    you are free to form your opinion .
     
  10. masterchief_mirza

    masterchief_mirza FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,886
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2019
    Ratings:
    +2 / 3,226 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    One day you might also be.
     
  11. AfrazulMandal

    AfrazulMandal SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    2,235
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    Ratings:
    +0 / 1,314 / -1
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    Next time when Islam returns to power in India, hope not a single 'Hindu' place of worship will be spared. Showing pardon is interpreted as weakness by the cow people.

    Liberals are the guards of Fascist Hindus. Note that the vast majority of them all are Hindus. They exist to only give jhoothi tasalli to Sarkari Musalmans and keep them sarkaris.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 5
  12. GHALIB

    GHALIB BANNED

    Messages:
    3,658
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2018
    Ratings:
    +1 / 1,591 / -46
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    go join ghazwa hind of zaid hamid .
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  13. AfrazulMandal

    AfrazulMandal SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    2,235
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    Ratings:
    +0 / 1,314 / -1
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    When it comes, IA.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  14. Sheikh Rauf

    Sheikh Rauf SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    4,678
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2014
    Ratings:
    +0 / 3,300 / -9
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Qatar
    then they sud have give decision in favor of muslims. minorities are afraid of these BJP RSS terrorist even judges and some politicians. so are you afraid of saying truth.
     
  15. Hindustani78

    Hindustani78 BANNED

    Messages:
    39,782
    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2014
    Ratings:
    +5 / 12,636 / -18
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    10th November 2019, 07:56am IST
    Updated: 10 November 2019, 07:56am IST

    A Section of Nirmohi Akhara Mahants remained divided over the Supreme Court verdict as the Top Functionaries Expressing Resentment over the Apex Court Rejecting the Akhara’s Claim over 2.77 Acres of the Disputed land of Bhagwan Shree Ram Janmabhoomi.

    One of the Petitioners in the Bhagwan Shree Ram Janmabhoomi Land Dispute welcomed the Court’s Verdict as this brought “satisfaction to the Hindu/Indian Nation putting An End to a Long Drawn Dispute over Bhagwan Shree Ram Janmabhoomi.

    “Certainly there are Resentments also as the Apex court did not give us a place in the Judgement. The Bhagwan Shree Ram Mandir issue is alive today because of Nirmohi Akhara. We have been Fighting for the Truth to be told to the whole Hindu/Indian Nation for the past 500 years,” Akhara’s spokesperson Prabhat Singh

    Akhara’s spokesperson Prabhat Singh said the Nirmohi Akhara will go through the over 1,000-page Judgement and Decide the Next Course of Action. “Yet We Welcome the Court’s Decision keeping in View that this has Gone in Favour of Arya's and the Entire Hindu/Indian Nation is satisfied,” Akhara’s spokesperson Prabhat Singh.

    Islam means the Religion of Adom A.S which is since the beginning of Humanity on Planet Earth. Mafi is not what the Cow People are thinking, More Lambs will be sacrificed now.

    Bakra.jpg

    Hindus/Indians are Civilisational Nation and for them Deen e Arya and Deen e Islam are the most Important. Sarkari Musalman are not Tarkari but Fauladi.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1